Seal: Washington, Connecticut; Founded 1779 www.WashingtonCT.org
The Town of Washington, Connecticut

Minutes: Historic District Commission, 2002		 Home
Search
Web page last updated: December 19, 2002
Disclaimer: While we have attempted to reproduce them accurately, the electronic documents you see here are not the official public documents. Official copies may be obtained on paper from the Town Clerk. Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.

Jump down to: December 16 • November 18 • October 21 • September 16 • August 19 • July 26 • July 15

December 16, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Smith, Mr. Treadway and Mr. Graney
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Picton and Mr. Talbot
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Rives and Mrs. Boyer
ALTERNATES ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 7:35PM and seated the members and seated Alternate Boyer for Mrs. Picton.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To approve the 11/18/02 minutes as written. By Mr. Treadway, seconded by Mrs. Boyer and passed 3-0.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Smith seated Mr. Graney and Mrs. Rives(for Mr. Talbot) when they arrived at approximately 7:40PM and informed them that the November minutes had been approved.

The members discussed the 2003 Calendar. All meetings will be held on the third Monday of every month with the exception of January and February when the meeting will be on the second Monday. At the January meeting, officers will be elected for the new year. Mr. Graney asked the other members if they were agreeable to the January meeting and possibly the February meeting starting at 8PM. It was decided the January meeting will be at 8PM and for now, the time of the February meeting will be left at 7:30PM.

MOTION: To accept the Historic District Commission calendar for the year 2003. By Mr. Treadway, seconded by Mrs. Rives and passed 4-1.

HDC needs another alternate member. This member must live in one of the historic districts. Mrs. Boyer said she would talk with Mrs. Cabbell and Mrs. Chute who live on the Green to see if they might be interested. Mrs. Khouri was also mentioned as a possible new member as well as Mr. DiBenedetto.

Mr. Smith and Mr. Graney will check out the Greenfield fence at 12 Ives Road later this month.

Signs on the Green. It was noted that several residents have made negative comments regarding the sandwich board signs on the Green. The members agreed that when the signs come and go for special events that is ok. However, Mr. Treadway said the Congregational Church sign that is out all the time seems unnecessary and is getting dirty and ugly. It is his understanding that HDC does have jurisdiction over signs. Mr. Smith will check with Attorney Miles. Mr. Graney suggested approaching the Congregational Church to let them know the sandwich boards need to go in and out for special events. They are not meant to be permanent.

Mr. Graney said he thinks the greater impact on the Green district is from the DOT signs. He thinks the state would be willing to work with HDC. Mrs. Boyer agreed - if they are not approached from an adversarial position. She added, it would be helpful if they could combine some of their signs on the same post - they have a lot of signs in a small historic district.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Rives.

Mr. Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:10PM.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully Submitted,

Martha T. Shade,
Secretary

November 18, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Smith and Mr. Treadway
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Graney, Mrs. Picton and Mr. Talbot
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Rives
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mrs. Boyer
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Khouri and Mr. Bass

PUBLIC HEARING

Khouri /75 Green Hill Road /Construct retaining wall at east edge of driveway and review reconstruction of east chimney.

Mr. Smith opened the Public Hearing at 7:30PM to consider the application for Certificate of Appropriateness by Ann M. Khouri, 75 Green Hill Road, to construct a retaining wall at the east edge of the driveway and review reconstruction of the east chimney. He read the legal notice which appeared in Voices on 11/10/02. Ms. Khouri and Mr. Bass were present.

Retaining wall

Ms. Khouri presented an information sheet and drawing for the retaining wall along with some photos and a site plan (marked rec'd 11/18/02). She explained that they have had extensive regrading done on the property due to ground water running toward the house and into the basement causing damage to sills and walls. They are proposing to build a stone retaining wall along the east side of the driveway. The retaining wall will be approximately 135ft long and the depth at the top of the wall will be 18 to 20in. The wall will be about 3ft tall in the middle and taper to approximately 1ft at either end. She showed the members a photo of the existing condition of the driveway and another photo of the type of stone to be used; Goshen stone from Massachusetts. Mr. Treadway asked if it will be a dry wall. Yes.

Mr. Smith concluded that not much of the retaining wall would be visible going down hill toward the Depot, but will be partially visible going up hill toward The Gunnery. The members agreed and stated they have no problem with the retaining wall.

Eastern chimney

Ms. Khouri referred the Commission to Page 2, Description 2; the east chimney. She explained that from the front elevation, the east chimney, which is toward the back of the house, is not tall enough to be visible.

She said when they began to take the chimney apart from the top down to the attic floor, they saw that it had been poorly built and was unusable in its existing condition. Due to the added cost and everything else they are faced with, it is not practical for them to go ahead with rebuilding the chimney. Ms. Khouri added, on the bright side, if they demolish the chimney to the ground they might be able to add another window which would help brighten up a dark room. The proposed window would be similar to other windows on the house. Mr. Treadway asked if they had any idea when the chimney was built. Ms. Khouri replied all the chimneys are original.

Mr. Treadway said he has no problem with what they have proposed. Mrs. Rives agreed. Mr. Smith said removal is not a problem with him either, nor is the window to replace it. He added, even if they were to rebuild the chimney and change its shape it would not be a big deal because he does not think it would be visible from a public way. Ms. Khouri asked the Commission if they could do either. Mr. Smith replied they could, however, if they do decide to rebuild the chimney, a drawing should be submitted to HDC.

Mr. Smith asked if there were any additional questions or comments. There were none.

MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for Certificate of Appropriateness for Ann M. Khouri, 75 Green Hill Road, to construct a retaining wall at the east edge of the driveway and review reconstruction of the east chimney. By Mr. Treadway, seconded by Mrs. Rives and passed 3-0.

Mr. Smith closed the Public Hearing at 8:05PM.

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 8:06PM and seated the members.

Pending Business

Khouri /75 Green Hill Road /Construct retaining wall at east edge of driveway and review reconstruction of east chimney.

MOTION: To approve the application for Certificate of Appropriateness by Ann M. Khouri, 75 Green Hill Road, to build a retaining wall on the east edge of the driveway according to drawings submitted November 18, 2002, remove chimney(E1) and replace it with a window similar to the others with the stipulation that details of the window will be presented to the Commission later. This work is to be completed by November 18, 2003; else this approval shall be void. By Mr. Treadway, seconded by Mrs. Rives and passed 3-0.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To approve the 10/21/02 minutes as written. By Mrs. Rives, seconded by Mr. Treadway and passed 3-0.

Other Business

Regarding the Greenfield fence at 12 Ives Road - Mr. Smith will check it out in December.

Correspondence

James Kelly wrote a letter on behalf of the Washington Club stating they were replacing the eight tennis courts in kind. He went on to say that the Club would apply to HDC when they are ready to construct the new deck, pro shop and storage area to replace those being removed. HDC will double check to verify that the deck, pro shop and storage area are actually in the Historic District.

A letter was sent to Mr. Ullram requesting a letter to notify HDC that the deck being replaced on the back of the post office building at 5 Kirby Road is being replaced in kind.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Rives.

Mr. Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:15PM.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully Submitted,

Martha T. Shade,
Secretary

October 21, 2002

 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Smith, Mr. Treadway, Mr. Graney, Mrs. Picton and Mr. Talbot.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Rives
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mrs. Boyer
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Appleyard

PUBLIC HEARING

Appleyard /175 Calhoun Street /Change front entrance, add wooden shutters and replace two windows.

Mr. Smith opened the Public Hearing at 7:30PM to consider the application for Certificate of Appropriateness submitted 9/25/02 by James C. and Patricia Appleyard, 175 Calhoun Street, to change the front entrance, add wooden shutters and replace two windows. He read the legal notice which appeared in Voices on 10/13/02. Mr. Smith seated the members and seated Alternate Rives for Mr. Talbot. Mr. Appleyard was present.

Mr. Appleyard presented new elevation drawings (existing front, proposed front and details of the front porch), a site plan and photos showing the house as viewed from Calhoun Street (all marked rec'd 10/21/02).

Mr. Appleyard said the house was built in 1989 and they have loved it, but now want to soften the look so it will blend in more with the other houses in the district. Pointing to the existing front elevation, he explained they plan to get rid of the Palladian window over the front door. The front door with the side panels will remain. The Palladian window on the end of the house will also be removed and clapboards will be put in its place. Below that area, two new windows will be added which will match the other windows on the house. He also noted they will be adding trim work over all the windows. The new shutters will be wooden and painted a very dark green. Mr. Treadway asked if the shutters would be large enough to close over the windows. No.

Mr. Talbot arrived at 7:40PM and was seated by Mr. Smith.

The members discussed the drawings and photos. Mrs. Picton asked if the columns were square. Yes, with chamfered edges. Mr. Talbot asked about the size of the columns. Approximately 1ft. It was noted that the windows in the existing front elevation drawing do not have muntins as shown in the proposed front elevation drawing. Mr. Appleyard said that was an error. The photos clearly show muntins in all the windows. Mr. Appleyard said he thinks the house will have more of a colonial look like other houses on Calhoun Street. Mr. Graney commented that the shutters give a more colonial revival look; like houses built at the turn of the century.

Mr. Appleyard said he would like to add a pergola over the garage doors and let wisteria grow over it. Mr. Talbot asked if it would be visible from the road. Mr. Appleyard did not think it would be visible due to the little hill in front of the garage (as shown in the photos). He added it is almost impossible to see the top of the garage doors from the road. Mr. Graney stated the Commission should have an elevation showing the depth of the pergola. Mr. Smith commented the garage with an added pergola becomes inconsistent with the main house. Mr. Talbot said he did not think it would be so inconsistent.

Mrs. Picton commented that the changes proposed improve the house. The shutters are colonial revival - not authentic colonial detailing. The shutters provide visual relief between the door and the front windows. Mr. Treadway also said the changes will be an improvement - not so overbearing. Mrs. Rives said she thinks it will look better. Mr. Talbot asked if lights will be centered behind the columns. Mr. Appleyard said yes, although he has not made a final decision on the lights.

Mr. Smith asked if there were any additional questions.

Mr. Talbot asked if there would be any gutters on the flat roof porch. Mr. Appleyard said there are gutters on the house but the roof will be pitched in such a way that the rain will fall off the sides. Mr. Talbot confirmed that a hip roof would allow the rain to flow off in three directions. Mr. Treadway said a slight hip roof would not even be noticed from the road. Since the drawing of the porch shows a flat roof, Mr. Smith asked the members if they were agreeable to the porch having a slight hip to drain the roof. All agreed it's ok.

Mr. Smith asked the Commission if there were any additional comments or questions. There were none.

MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for Certificate of Appropriateness for James C. and Patricia Appleyard, 175 Calhoun Street, to change front entrance, add wooden shutters and replace two windows. By Mr. Treadway, seconded by Mrs. Picton and passed 5-0.

Mr. Smith closed the Public Hearing at 8:12PM.

This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 8:15PM and seated the members.

Pending Business

Appleyard /175 Calhoun Street /Change front entrance, add wooden shutters, replace two windows.

MOTION: To approve the application for Certificate of Appropriateness submitted September 25, 2002 by James C. and Patricia Appleyard, 175 Calhoun Street, to replace the front entrance, add wooden shutters and replace two windows according to the final plans submitted October 21, 2002 and labeled "A-1.00 proposed". This work is to be completed by October 21, 2003; else this approval shall be void. By Mr. Graney, seconded by Mr. Treadway and passed 5-0.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To approve the 9/16/02 minutes as written. By Mr. Treadway, seconded by Mr. Graney and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Discussion of sandwich board signs on the Green

Mr. Treadway read from the State Statutes, Sec.7-147d, regarding signs. .........The style, material, size and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill posters within an historic district shall also be under the control of such commission.........

The members discussed the signs on the Green. They all agreed the signs brought in and out on a daily basis are not as objectionable as the ones that are left out all the time. Mr. Smith said before he speaks with any of the sign owners, he will ask David Miles, the town attorney, if he agrees with what Mr. Treadway read from the State Statutes.

The Swiss Hospitality Institute sign on the Green was discussed. Previously, Mr. Smith spoke with a person at State DOT who assured him that DOT was given permission by the former First Selectman to place the sign on the Green because the international students were having a hard time finding the school. Mr. Smith asked the members if they would like for him to pursue this and ask the school if the signs are still essential. Mr. Treadway suggested that if the state could place the school sign on the same post with the other directional signs, then that would be better. Mr. Graney noted that HDC has no jurisdiction over DOT - therefore, is caught in the middle between DOT and Swiss Hospitality. Mr. Smith suggested he could write a letter to the Selectmen notifying them that HDC would like to be consulted about future signs in the Historic District. Mr. Graney said the letter could go one step further and explain that HDC did not have their due process - they were not even told about the sign. Mrs. Picton added that the Commission was also not consulted about the sidewalk the town put in on the Green.

Mr. Treadway asked if there was anything new on the Greenfield fence at 11 Ives Road. Mr. Smith said he still needs to go with one or two other members to the site in order to judge how high the fence needs to be for privacy. If Mr. Greenfield or his attorney do not request a Public Hearing in November, Mr. Treadway proposed that the Commission discuss the fence during their Regular Meeting.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Treadway.

Mr. Smith adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:30PM.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully Submitted,

Martha T. Shade,
Secretary

September 16, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Smith, Mr. Treadway, Mr. Graney and Mrs. Picton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Talbot
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Rives
ALTERNATES ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade

PUBLIC HEARING

DiBenedetto /214 Calhoun Street /install picket fence and front entry portico.

Mr. Smith opened the Public Hearing at 7:40PM to consider the application for Certificate of Appropriateness submitted 8/30/02 by Anthony DiBenedetto, 214 Calhoun Street, to install a picket fence and front entry portico. He read the legal notice which appeared in Voices on 9/8/02. Mr. Smith seated the members and seated Alternate Rives for Mr. Talbot. Mr. DiBenedetto was present.

Mr. DiBenedetto brought additional information which had been requested by Mr. Talbot in his application completeness review of 9/10/02. He presented to the Commission a site plan, photos of proposed fence with gate and detailed drawings of the portico by Moisan Architects (marked rec'd 9/16/02).

Mr. DiBenedetto said the idea of a portico seems to be meeting a fair amount of resistance from the landscape designer and Mrs. DiBenedetto. He thought the relatively small portico as drawn by Moisan would be in keeping with the rest of the house. In front of the door now is a cemented over granite area which over the years has broken and sunk into the ground.

Mr. DiBenedetto said he would like to get approval for the portico then think about it for a while. In the interim he wants to clean up the granite - use two larger pieces (one 6ft and one 8ft) to repair the steps, and use some of the smaller pieces to make the beginning of a walkway from the house to the fence. He said that they would like to give the house the appearance of being further back from the road but by adding a portico, it brings the house out toward the road. But after the fence is added they will have a better idea of how the portico will look. They will probably make a decision in the spring.

Mr. Smith noted there was a considerable difference between the portico drawing submitted with the application and the drawing from Moisan. He added if the Moisan drawing is the one to be considered, the Commission will need a copy for the file. Mrs. Picton asked if the Moisan drawing is in response to Mr. Talbot's request. Yes. The members studied the drawing. There was a brief discussion as to whether the shutters would be left on the house if the portico is added. Mr. DiBenedetto stated that the Moisan drawing with all the dimensions, details and materials to be used is the one they propose if a portico is to be installed. This work will not be done until spring, if at all, and Mr. DiBenedetto said he will come back to the Commission when they are planning to proceed with the portico.

Mr. Smith suggested to the members that they consider the fence and then come back to a discussion of the portico. Mr. DiBenedetto said that would be good because he would like to get started on the fence.

Mr. DiBenedetto presented new pictures of the proposed fence (marked rec'd 9/16/02) which will have more of a square peg look than the Nantucket style as presented with the application. There will be a single 36in gate. Mr. Treadway asked where the fencing would be. Mr. DiBenedetto brought a scale drawing to explain the detail of the fencing (marked rec'd 9/16/02) and its location. Mrs. Picton verified that the fence will just be paralleling the road and will not angle back. Yes. Mr. DiBenedetto said some of the original posts are still in place from an old fence. He intends to follow the line of the existing posts. There will be an equal distance of 45ft on either side of the gate anchored by a large maple and 6ft returns on either end. Mr. Treadway asked how far the fence will be from the road. Mr. DiBenedetto said it averaged 13.5 to 14.5ft. Mr. Smith asked if the original fence went back along the sides of the property. No, only along the front. Mr. DiBenedetto said he checked with the Zoning and Building departments and they told him to come to HDC first.

Mrs. Picton asked if any outside lighting is planned. No. And what type of hinges and hardware will be on the gate. Probably black hinges and hardware. The members agreed that the hinges and hardware should be as simple as possible. Mr. Treadway said depending on which way the gate swings, the hinges may not even be visible. Mr. DiBenedetto said the gate will swing in so the hinges will be on the inside and will not be visible. He added there may be an outside handle. Mr. Smith reiterated that the idea is to keep it all relatively plain and simple.

Mr. Smith asked if the parking area is going to be paved. Mr. DiBenedetto said there will be no paving. He explained that the previous owner had cut in a parking area for three cars in front of the house, approximately 30ft wide by 20ft deep. His intention is to remove some of the rocks which are piled up, plant some grass and bring in some tan stone for a parking area large enough for two cars. The view from the road will be a nice picket fence, the grassy apron area and the stone parking area which will not be very noticeable. Mr. Smith asked the members if they had a good idea of what the parking area will look like and if the location is acceptable. Mr. Treadway said he had no problem with it. All agreed. Mr. Smith asked the Commission if they had additional questions or needed any more information on the fence. No.

The Commission proceeded to discuss the portico and its design. Mr. Treadway asked if there was originally a portico on the house. Mr. DiBenedetto said no but at one time there was a sleeping porch overhanging the side door which provided some shelter over the door. Mr. Smith said he understands the need for the portico, but the issue is the design of the portico in relation to the rest of the house. Mr. Graney noted that historically, porticos on houses come and go. Mr. Graney shared with members a book which showed pictures of various designs of porticos as they have appeared on houses over the years. Mr. Treadway said federal houses had porticos and the DiBenedetto house is a federal style. Mr. DiBenedetto said the house is more Italianate. Mr. Graney and Mrs. Picton agreed - looking at the low hip roof, the height and the proportions of it - the house is from around the 1850's.

The members studied the Moisan drawing of the portico. Mr. Smith questioned whether the Moisan design is consistent with the design of the house because consistency is the key for the Commission in considering the application. Mrs. Picton asked Mr. Smith if he was concerned with the elaborateness of the entablature. Mr. Smith said he wonders about that. Mrs. Picton agreed. She added it seems complicated and elaborate compared to the rest of the house. Mrs. Picton pointed out the big plain frieze across the top of the house and the bay of windows on the second floor and she wondered if the portico will seem almost out of scale. Mr. Smith asked if she thinks the portico is too small. Mrs. Picton replied in a way it is too small yet too complicated - the rest of the house is so simple. Mrs. Picton asked if the original drawing submitted with the application is still under consideration. Mrs. Picton said she does not have a problem with the original drawing, she thinks it is better. She added the posts are typical Italianate with a pedestal about one-third of the way up and a square post on top of that with a simple hip roof. The members compared the two drawings. Are the pilasters and the small entablature part of the present door? Yes. Mrs. Picton commented that if the pilasters are there now, they are relatively new. Mr. Treadway remarked that the door in the Moisan drawing seems narrower than the door in the original drawing.

Mr. Smith asked the Commission if the concept of a portico is acceptable. Yes, all agreed. He then asked Mr. DiBenedetto if he wants to commit to the Moisan drawing. No.

Mr. Smith said the width of the portico in the original drawing is an issue because of the shutters and the reaction to the Moisan drawing is that maybe it is very narrow. Are we looking at an aesthetic juggle between the two drawings; finding a width that would be good. Mr. Treadway said the portico will have to be narrow because of the shutters. Mr. Smith asked the members which drawing they think would be more acceptable. He said the sense he is getting is that if the portico in the Moisan drawing was slightly wider, but not as wide as the portico in the original drawing, that would be agreeable. And secondly, if the portico is to be as narrow as in the Moisan drawing, should it be simpler. Mrs. Rives said by next spring there might be a whole new design.

Mr. DiBenedetto said right now the portico is not happening and he would be more than agreeable to some type of approval that would allow him to move forward with the portico in the spring with the provision that the Historic Commission would like to see some revisions. He understands that some of the concerns are the width and the detail of the roof and before proceeding he would submit changes for HDC approval. He said he would be more than happy to get a conditional approval that he could put a portico on with the stipulation that he meet again with the Commission and at that time submit a detail that is based more on simplicity.

Mr. Smith asked the Commission if they would turn down the portico drawings by Moisan. Yes. The original drawing is better except for the width. Mr. Smith summarized that they would approve the front entry portico subject to the submission of a final design taking into account the discussion in this meeting. Mr. DiBenedetto asked if there would be minutes of this meeting available. Mr. DiBenedetto said he would forward a copy of the minutes to Mr. Moisan's office at the appropriate time. Mr. Smith said there is also a tape of this Public Hearing.

Mr. Smith asked the members if there were any additional comments or questions. There were none.

MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for Certificate of Appropriateness for Anthony DiBenedetto, 214 Calhoun Street, to install a picket fence and front entry portico. By Mr. Treadway, seconded by Mr. Graney and passed 5-0.

Mr. Smith closed the Public Hearing at 8:25PM.

This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 8:27PM and seated the members and seated Alternate Rives for Mr. Talbot.

Pending Business

DiBenedetto /214 Calhoun Street /Install picket fence and front entry portico.

MOTION: To approve the application for Certification of Appropriateness submitted August 30, 2002 by Anthony DiBenedetto, 214 Calhoun Street, to install a white picket fence as illustrated by documents submitted September 16, 2002 and a front entry portico subject to the submission and approval of a final design incorporating the considerations noted in the Public Hearing September 16, 2002. This work is to be completed by September 16, 2003; else this approval shall be void. By Mr. Treadway, seconded by Mrs. Rives and passed 5-0.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To approve the 8/19/02 minutes as written. By Mrs. Picton, seconded by Mrs. Rives and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Discussion of sandwich board signs on the Green

The members discussed a letter(dated 7/11/02) from Janet Hill, Land Use Coordinator, regarding a complaint she received regarding the "temporary" sandwich board signs belonging to the Congregational Church and the store in the Green District. Mr. Treadway and Mrs. Rives have both received complaints and Mrs. Rives added that the signs are becoming less attractive as time goes by. Mr. Treadway stated he is in favor of removing both the signs - he does not think the signs do that much for either institution. Mr. Smith observed that these signs are now almost permanent - if the Church and store want these signs they will have to bring them in at night.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Graney.

Mr. Smith adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:55PM.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully Submitted,

Martha T. Shade,
Secretary

August 19, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Treadway and Mr. Graney
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Smith, Mr. Talbot and Mrs. Picton
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Rives
ALTERNATES ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Treadway called the meeting to order at 7:30PM and seated the members and Alternate Rives for Mr. Smith. Bonnie Matthews attended as an interested Alternate.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To approve the 7/15/02 minutes as corrected:

Pg.1, under MEMBERS ABSENT...Picton. By Mrs. Rives, seconded by Mr. Graney and passed 3-0.

MOTION: To approve the 7/26/02 minutes as written. By Mr. Graney, seconded by Mrs. Rives and passed 3-0.

Other Business

The Commission was given some information regarding the upcoming Plan of Conservation and Development meeting scheduled for 8/21/02. The members agreed it should be an informative meeting and will try to attend.

Mrs. Rives mentioned the sandwich board signs on the green belonging to the Congregational Church and the Washington Green Deli. There have been some complaints. Mrs. Rives noted that sandwich boards are usually put up for specific events and that is ok because usually they are taken down right after the event. After a brief discussion, the members decided this topic should be on the agenda for the September meeting.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Treadway adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:45PM.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully Submitted

Martha T. Shade, Secretary

July 26, 2002

Public Hearing - Special Meeting

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Smith, Mr. Graney, Mr. Talbot
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Alison, Mr. Treadway
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Rives
ALTERNATES ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Khouri, Mr. Bass

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Smith opened the Public Hearing at 7:05PM to consider revisions to the application for Certificate of Appropriateness issued 4/16/01 to Ann Khouri and Leonard Bass, 75 Green Hill Road, to make changes to the east side of the house. Mr. Smith seated the members and Alternate Rives for Mr. Treadway. Ms. Khouri and Mr. Bass were present.

Ms. Khouri presented a preliminary drawing of the east elevation and told the Commission she would like to add a porch on the east side of the house which will be constructed like the west porch with the same columns and mahogany tongue and groove decking. The existing roof on the front of the house will wrap around the corner and continue down the entire east side. There will be three windows of the same size on the second floor of the east side - the first floor windows and the door will remain the same. Mr. Talbot said the windows would barely be visible from the public way. Mr. Graney agreed and noted that the slight change in size would also not be visible. Mr. Talbot asked if the new windows are going to be custom. Ms. Khouri replied she will probably use Marvin windows but is still researching and has not made a final decision. Mr. Smith said the final details regarding the windows should be presented to the Commission.

Mr. Smith noted the most significant changes are the new porch and the change in roofline. In addition to the east elevation, the Commission will need a front elevation showing the entry. Mr. Talbot agreed - it is important to have all the drawings.

Mr. Smith asked if there were any other issues. Ms. Khouri said they are going to use brick instead of bluestone when they replace the pathway. She will submit a sketch. The garage is in poor condition. It needs to be reframed and the doors will be rebuilt using strap hinges. The members thought that would be appropriate. Mr. Talbot asked if there will be any outside lighting. No. The subject of shutters was briefly mentioned.

Mr. Smith asked if there were any additional questions. There were none.

MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider revisions to the application for Certificate of Appropriateness for Ann M. Khouri and Leonard A. Bass, 75 Green Hill Road, to make changes to the east side of the house. By Mr. Graney, seconded by Mrs. Rives and passed 4-0.

SPECIAL MEETING

Mr. Smith called the special meeting to order at 7:40PM and seated Alternate Rives for Mr. Treadway.

MOTION: To approve revisions to the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted April 16, 2001 by Ann M. Khouri and Leonard A. Bass, 75 Green Hill Road, as follows: a porch and changes in the second floor and rooflines on the east side, changes to the entry way itself as shown in the revised east elevation presented July 23, 2002. In addition, the entry pathway is to be brick. Details concerning windows remain to be decided. This approval includes the stipulation that a north elevation will be provided and details concerning windows will be presented to the Commission. This work is to be completed by July 26, 2003; else this approval shall be void. By Mrs. Rives, seconded by Mr. Graney and passed 4-0.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Rives.

Mr. Smith adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:00PM.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully Submitted

Martha T. Shade, Secretary

July 15, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Smith, Mr. Graney, Mr. Talbot
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Alison, Mr. Treadway
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Rives
ALTERNATES ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Khouri, Mr. Bass, Mr. Greenfield, Ms. Riesner, Mr. Bader

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 7:36PM and seated the members and Alternate Rives for Mr. Treadway. Mr. Smith made a motion to amend the agenda.

MOTION: To amend the agenda to add the following applicant to Other Business: Greenfield, 12 Ives Road, for discussion of pool fence. By Mrs. Rives, seconded by Mr. Talbot and passed 4-0.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 6/13/02 minutes as corrected:
Pg.3, Par.1, Line 2 ...entablature and ...
and to accept the 6/14/02 minutes as written and to
accept the 6/17/02 minutes as corrected:
Pg.2, Par 2, last line ...passed 4-1. Mr. Graney
voted against.
By Mr. Graney, seconded by Mrs. Rives and passed 4-0.

OTHER BUSINESS

Khouri /75 Green Hill Road /Progress on renovations.

Ms. Ann Khouri and Mr. Leonard Bass were both present. Ms. Khouri handed a detailed description of 14 items which they hope to address before their C of A expires in April 2003.

Ms. Khouri said when they pulled down the aluminum siding they saw what poor shape the structure was in - much worse than they thought. A lot of damage from moisture. There are significant structural issues. The major part of the house is supported inadequately - the NW porch was supported on three iron pins - just sitting on rock. Now the porch is structurally sound. The same condition exists in the back of the house and on the driveway side of the house.

Regarding the roof, Ms. Khouri said they would like to use a fiberglass shingle as wood is too costly. The existing roof is asphalt. Mr. Smith thought the fiberglass shingle appeared to have the same texture as asphalt. Though color is not in the jurisdiction of HDC, Ms. Khouri showed the members a sample of the fiberglass shingles and said they have chosen one in the red family. Also, the house will not be white. In the late 1800's the house was a dark color (as were many during that time period according to her research) - they uncovered some of the old dark shingles while working on the porch. Mr. Smith agreed that HDC has no jurisdiction over color, but they do not have to make the house look as it did originally.

Ms. Khouri briefly discussed the four chimneys. The main chimney is in very unstable condition. The replacement bricks will be matched as closely as possible to the existing bricks in size and color. Ms. Khouri will be submitting drawings.

Ms. Khouri said she would like to reduce the gable on the east side and improve the roof line. She asked for the reaction of the members. All agreed it seemed to be a good idea. Ms. Khouri said she will present a drawing and meet again with HDC for their approval. Mr. Smith suggested the members should go for a site visit when the drawings are ready.

Regarding the driveway - there are no changes in materials or the driveway itself.

The existing bluestone pathways must be removed. There is a serious water problem which has caused rotting sills and the front of the property must be regraded so that the earth slopes away from the house. Ms. Khouri asked the Commission if they get involved in regrading. No. Ms. Khouri is proposing to use brick instead of bluestone in the same location as the existing walk.

Ms. Khouri asked what the position of the Commission is regarding alternate materials - specifically for some trim and crown molding. It would be tremendously expensive to use all wood. Mr. Smith said the Commission is open to considering alternate materials, but the burden will be on them to convince the members. Mr. Graney cautioned them to save the old wood wherever possible because new wood does not hold paint as well as old wood and composite materials may not either.

Mr. Graney asked about their six-month schedule. Ms. Khouri replied that they have a mason and roofer lined up. They also have a good carpenter to take care of the structural issues. She added they had no idea how much work would be involved in this project. Each window has to be removed and restored. They are hoping by the end of the year to have the electrical, mechanical and the outside work completed.

The Commission agreed to set up a Special Public Hearing to help expedite matters.

Greenfield /12 Ives Road /Fencing.

Mr. Greenfield was present along with Anna Riesner and Bill Bader who is advising them regarding plantings.

Mr. Bader said Mr. Greenfield and Ms. Riesner need privacy for the pool. He suggested arborvitae, hemlock or spruce be planted in front of the fence to cover.

Mr. Greenfield said he put up the retaining wall and fence because the slope was deteriorating. He stained the fence so it would weather - he wants to disguise it and is willing to work with the Commission.

Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Greenfield previously spoke of planting vines to grow over the fence but did not want to lower the wall. Mr. Greenfield stated he would rather keep the fence as it is and plant something to cover. Mr. Bader said spruce may be best since arborvitae and hemlock require more sun.

Mr. Smith said the issue of height is serious as seen from Ives Road. Spruce would make a difference. Mr. Bader said he could plant 6 to 8 spruce trees. Mrs. Rives commented that Mr. Treadway was particularly upset about the height of the fence. Mr. Graney added, in winter it is quite a structure. Ms. Riesner said spruce trees would cover it very well.

Mr. Talbot said he sees two issues. One, you must get approval from the Commission before anything built in one of the historic districts - and two, this fence would not have been approved. It should be the type of fence that disappears. Mr. Greenfield said he feels the fence defines the edge of the pool which runs parallel to Ives Road.

Mr. Graney told Mr. Greenfield to think of this meeting as a preliminary discussion on what type of fence he can build for privacy (only it's already there). Mr. Graney thought a shorter fence might do. The members noted that at a previous meeting Mr. Treadway thought the fence should be reduced to 4ft. Mr. Smith and Mrs. Rives thought 5ft would work. Ms. Riesner said privacy is a concern. Before the fence was up she said she was looking at each driver on Baldwin Hill Road - the fence closes it off. Mr. Smith asked if the fence screens from Baldwin Hill Road. Yes. Mr. Smith asked if trees would help screen the pool from Baldwin Hill Road. Ms. Riesner said they would help.

Mr. Graney advised Mr. Greenfield and Ms. Riesner that they will need a fence around the pool. He suggested some form of screening and some reduced fence may be a solution. Mr. Talbot reiterated the Commission does not have jurisdiction over planting and agreed with Mr. Graney that it is a slippery slope to allow residents to cover with plantings a structure which has not been approved by the Historic District Commission.

Mr. Greenfield commented that cutting the fence down to 4ft would make him very unhappy. He feels the fence is an architectural feature.

The members briefly discussed the possibility of making the fence larger to make it look like the side of a shed or small barn. Ms. Riesner did not like that idea. Mr. Talbot asked why not just take the fence down and put up a split rail or similar fence that cannot be seen so clearly; one that would disappear into the landscape.

Mrs. Rives asked what kind of fence the Commission would have suggested if Mr. Greenfield had come to HDC in the beginning. Mr. Graney said he is not an architect or a designer, but coming up Baldwin Hill Road this structure does not look like a fence but a monolith. Mr. Smith asked how about if the fence went around the corner. Ms. Riesner said a split rail fence does not fit the house. Mr. Graney remarked that the landscape of the Calhoun-Ives district was what designated it as an historic district. This fence is not appropriate for the district.

Ms. Reisner asked if they could go back to discussing the planting. Mr. Bader said spruce would look good.

Mr. Graney suggested to Mr. Greenfield that he go back to Silvestri Fencing (who designed the present fence) and see if they can come up with some different ideas to present to the Commission.

Mr. Smith said where we are seems to be:

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Smith adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:15PM.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully Submitted

Martha T. Shade, Secretary